Child’s report was based on the fact that a relatively large number of Israelis have been attending the Iranian film.

Considering the Iranian regime’s continuing calls for their state’s destruction, sponsorship of terrorist groups (Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad) engaged in proxy wars against them, and their responsibility for an attack against Jews in Argentina, such a dynamic should reasonably been framed as a story about Israeli tolerance – Jews who don’t hold Iranian citizens responsible for the malevolent antisemitism of their leaders.

We’re to assume, it seems, that the “war, intimidation, and aggression” is of the Israeli variety, in contrast to Iran’s “peaceful” culture.

Child continues.

The film’s fledgling box-office success in a country whose leaders are currently considering a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities is all the more remarkable…

Yair Raveh, a leading Israeli film critic who writes for the Pnai Plus entertainment magazine, said his countrymen were often surprised to note that Iranians did not seem all that different from themselves.

“The judge, the police, everyone behaves as if they are in a western country.” Rivka Cohen, who left Iran at age 15 and is now 78, said she was surprised to note that “everyone had a fridge and a washing machine”.

Whatever would leave Israelis with the impression that Iran is illiberal and unenlightened?

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are part of the anti-Semitic literature published in Iran, and was issued during the early stages of the Islamic revolution as a weapon against the Shah, Israel and the Jews. In 1985 a new edition was published and widely distributed by the Department of International Relations of the Association for the Spread of Islam in Teheran.

A Iranian Student News Agency – ISNA , a “reformist” group, published “research” under the heading “One of the biggest lies in history: the truths that cast doubt on the murder of 6 million Jews by Hitler.” The main results of the “research” were: “the question of the murder and cremation of Jews by Nazi Germany is an issue the Zionists have been exploiting for years to represent themselves as unfortunate.”

An edition of the popular Iranian newspaper Jomhouri Eslami , published, in the “For Your Information” column, an article which claimed that to prepare matzohs for Passover the Jews needed the blood of non-Jewish children .

A popular Iranian television series titled, “Zahra’s Blue Eyes,” or “For You, Palestine” carried, on Sahar-1 T-V, depicts the career of an Israeli political candidate who supports the harvesting of the organs of Palestinian children by Israeli doctors.

From the Iranian state-run Iranian Times: “The nucleus of the Zionist mindset, the energy source that drives those who think in this manner to behave like the inhuman monsters that they are, is Jewish supremacism; the need to destroy all that it is not Jewish, the goyim, in order for the Jewish people to survive.”

The narrative not advanced by Guardian journalists such as Child is the truly remarkable fact that a film shown, and wildly popular, in Israel, was produced in a nation which seeks the Jews’ destruction.

The Guardian may not have official censorship rules but their ideological orientation serves as an impenetrable barrier to acknowledging even the most intuitive evidence regarding Israel’s liberal prowess in a region awash with totalitarian and racist values.

Yes Dubitante, and Begin’s and Shamir’s extended families, siblings, friends and parents were wanted by the Nazis back in Poland, back in the day when Reinhard Heydrich was head of Interpol. Wasn’t life so much better when you could administer justice to the Jews without the ‘zionists’ getting in the way.

Dubi – you are of course correct that Israeli politicians cancelled trips to the UK for fear of arrest, but this is because we had a farcical system whereby any nutcase could accuse a visitor of war crimes and the police would have to arrest them.

So they cancelled trips, not because they were guilty of war crimes or wanted for war crimes by anyone with any credibility, but simply because the UK legal system left them vulnerable to arrest at the whim of the multitude of Israel-haters in the UK.

This is hardly comparable to a named individual who is wanted by an international law enforcement agency for involvement in a specific terrorist act.

Yup. That’s correct. Israelis SUSPECTED (got that word – innocent til proven guilty and all) of having committed war crimes are subject to international law like everybody else (including members of the Iranian government alleged to have been involved in the massacre of innocents in Argentina).

They should not, however, be subject to random threats of arrest on the political whim of unaccountable NGOs and others with a grudge. I don’t think Interpol can be included in this category.

Of course, you seem to believe that the political whim of unaccountable NGOs and others with a grudge is a proper and reasonable way of ensuring the implementation of international law.

No one is advocating summary conviction, but universal jurisdiction is there for a reason. Enforcement of universal jurisdiction should not be set aside for reasons of political inconvenience.

If there is a case to answer, let them answer it. This applies to members of the Iranian regime, the Israeli regime, and particularly to the likes of Tony Blair and George W Bush, who I would most like to see on trial at The Hague.

So you have decided that Blair and Bush should go on trial. Well, I can think of lots more, such as Ahmedinejad, Chavez, Asad, Mugabe, Hanniye … Shall we play this game?

According to international Human Rights groups, there is hardly any government anywhere who can’t be accused of something.

If you had your way, international trade and diplomacy would simply grind to a halt. Noone would be able to travel outside their own country in case some crazy with a grudge in their destination country decided they had committed some crime or other.

You say you are an anarchist. Well you are entitled to that position. I too would love it if we could all live together in harmony with no countries and no laws and just be jolly pleasant to each other because – well, that’s just fluffy and lovely.

But I live in the real world, where countries exist, alliances exist, trade exists, jobs and economies exist and people (ordinary ones, not ones in “smart uniforms” depend on these systems to get food in their mouths and shelter over their heads.

And your idealistic scheme of getting anyone who has ever been naughty into court would render that impossible. Sorry to shatter your dreams. It’s a harsh world.

“I too would love it if we could all live together in harmony with no countries and no laws and just be jolly pleasant to each other because – well, that’s just fluffy and lovely.”

We had laws long before we had states. States are unnecessary.

“But I live in the real world, where countries exist, alliances exist”

We had alliances long before we had states.

“trade exists”

We had trade long before we had states.

“jobs and economies exist”

People worked and lived long before we had states.

“and people (ordinary ones, not ones in “smart uniforms” depend on these systems to get food in their mouths and shelter over their heads.”

And this was true long before we had states.

“And your idealistic scheme of getting anyone who has ever been naughty into court would render that impossible. Sorry to shatter your dreams. It’s a harsh world.”

Only because you are starting from the status quo and working backwards. It’s not your fault, almost everyone does the same thing. We are schooled from a very early age to not question established power and privilege.

Very good, dubi. You have taught me that the world existed before we had states. Thanks. I wasn’t aware of that.

But states DO exist, and have done for quite a few centuries now. In fact, is there any part of the world where states don’t exist?

Campaign for change – go ahead. Challenge the status quo – all power to your elbow. You may be a dreamer (and you’re not the only one) but what are you going to do in the meantime? I believe that taxes are evil and are there to reinforce the tyranny of established power and privilege but if I refuse to pay them, I go to jail. That’s life.

“Very good, dubi. You have taught me that the world existed before we had states. Thanks. I wasn’t aware of that.”:)

“But states DO exist, and have done for quite a few centuries now. In fact”

Not so. States are a 19th century European invention. Exported from Europe to disastrous effect. The rise of nationalism and the nation state in 19th century Europe was one of the factors which led to increased anti-Semitism, and has led to countless deaths.

“is there any part of the world where states don’t exist?”

Palestine.

Come on, you walked into it.

The exporting of European style mini-states to the Near East by the great powers is one of the main reasons you and I are having this discussion today.

“I believe that taxes are evil and are there to reinforce the tyranny of established power and privilege but if I refuse to pay them, I go to jail. That’s life.”

That’s states for you. Every law designed to prop up the power and privilege of the ruling elite is enforced with the threat of violence.

“Still no apology for calling me a racist.”

I didn’t call you a racist, I said your argument bordered on racism, which I still think it does.

“The exporting of European style mini-states to the Near East by the great powers is one of the main reasons you and I are having this discussion today.” dood-dood-dee-da-da

Are you back again to this!?? So, do you prefer giant-dictatorships or oriental despotisms or humungus caliphates, instead? Do you think they are more “organic”, right?

Your have the classic postmodernist leftist loathing of the West, the Enlightenment and its success. Listen, you lost. Socialism failed everywhere. But you can move to North-Korea if you find it so nice.

Your intellectual dishonesty is just boundless. As with every commited “progressive”. In fact, you are the worst type of dogmatist.

It’s hard to know where to begin with that post. That’s the problem, dubi. You and I have such differing views of the world that it’s virtually impossible to hold a reasoned debate.

It’s like trying to get a cat and a mouse to agree on a good menu for a lunch date.

However, I admire (no that’s the wrong word) stand in amazement at your certainty about events that took place in Gaza given that the record is far from clear or undisputed.

I also have to say that your statement that “the rise of the nation state was one of the factors that led to increased anti-semitism” is just a doozy. Perhaps you can ignore the centuries of virulent Jew hatred and attempts to exterminate my people from before the 19th century, but don’t expect me to.

That´s doo-doo´s intention, can´t you see? It´s classical overcharge propaganda technique. He just post a bunch of lies and distortions, that were repeatedly debunked, and he keeps recycling them all over.

He´s not interested in truth, evidence nor debate, but to worn-out bona-fide people that think they can reason with him. It´s just a GAME,
what postmodernists pseudo-intellectuals proudly call “l´art du bavardage” (or empty babbling). It´s pure noise, diversion, cloud, disinformation. That´s the old and new leftist tactics.

“That’s the problem, dubi. You and I have such differing views of the world that it’s virtually impossible to hold a reasoned debate.”

Precisely why I don’t often discuss my personal views, and usually stick to citing the documentary record.

“However, I admire (no that’s the wrong word) stand in amazement at your certainty about events that took place in Gaza given that the record is far from clear or undisputed.”

It’s pretty well documented, by the UN, by Amnesty, by Human Rights Watch, by the ICRC. I try to stick to pretty uncontroversial sources. I don’t use Israeli or Palestinian official accounts for obvious reasons.

“Perhaps you can ignore the centuries of virulent Jew hatred and attempts to exterminate my people from before the 19th century, but don’t expect me to.”

I didn’t say that the rise of nationalism and the nation state *created* anti-Semitism, far from it. Jews have been singled out for persecution throughout history. But it’s a hard sell to say that European nationalism and nation states didn’t make it a lot worse.

“If you had your way, international trade and diplomacy would simply grind to a halt. Noone would be able to travel outside their own country in case some crazy with a grudge in their destination country decided they had committed some crime or other.” Gooner

Sure, this is no problem to doc doo-doo, for he´s against nation-states. But of course, this is just in theory, for he only whines about those evil Western nations or, to be more precise, to that mini-Western nation, Israel, and he never goes around preaching the end of Britain or France. Much less of those “organic” islamic sh*t-holes, that aren´t supposed to abide by those eurocentric concepts of human rights and and all, but stick to their “natural” barbarian stage.

JERUSALEM – Following the passage of amendments to the UK’s “Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill 2010-11,” which now requires the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant is issued for a privately-instigated prosecution, Jerusalem-based research institute NGO Monitor applauded the new law as an important step in preventing abuse of universal jurisdiction statutes.

“The UK legal system has been exploited by NGOs such as Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Yesh Gvul, Al Haq, and Al Mezan, and their British partners Daniel Machover, the Hickman & Rose Solicitors firm, and Irvine, Thanvi, Natas, and Imran Khan & Partners,” said NGO Monitor Legal Advisor Anne Herzberg. “Under the guise of ‘justice’ and ‘human rights,’ these groups have initiated highly politicized PR stunts in the form of meritless legal cases. The purpose of this lawfare is publicity that reinforces efforts to label Israelis ‘war criminals’ as part of the Durban strategy.”

British universal jurisdiction laws formerly allowed for private citizens to seek politically-motivated arrest warrants for individuals who had allegedly committed international crimes. The laws faced increased criticism, particularly following an attempt by a Hamas-linked NGO to arrest Tzipi Livni, Israel’s former foreign minister and current opposition leader, for “war crimes.” Widespread protest led to demands for a change in the universal jurisdiction law to prevent further abuse by private litigants.

Several NGOs including Coalition of Women for Peace, Amnesty International, War on Want, and others have condemned or tried to block the sensible changes. In promoting their political agendas, officials allege that the legislation “introduces dangerous delays” and establishes the UK as “an effective ‘safe-haven’ for war criminals.”

“In fact, the law preserves the UK’s ability to adjudicate universal jurisdiction cases, while guaranteeing that NGOs and other private bodies will not be able to abuse the British legal system.” continued Herzberg. “NGO Monitor was one of the first organizations to highlight the problem of NGO ‘lawfare.’ In meetings with dozens of diplomats, we informed them of the groups responsible for the frivolous suits and their funding sources, particularly European governments.”

In a January 2010 lecture at Hebrew University, Attorney General Baroness Scotland referred to this abuse, noting that legal procedure in the UK was being abused for “political and other unjust purposes” and that “energetic efforts [were] being made to find a resolution to the problem.”

You just can’t accept that you’ve lost this argument, can you dubi, so you resort to factless statements of your own certainty. The reforms were to prevent the ABUSE of the system by politically motivated individuals and groups. What’s so difficult to understand?

Yes. I say that non-Muslims can’t go to Mecca for fear of arrest. That, too is incontestible. What does it prove, though? Does it prove that it is right to forbid non-Muslims from Mecca? Does it prove that non-Muslims are incontrovertibly inferior to Muslims?

Not in my book.

Similarly, the “fact” that Israelis have cancelled trips to the UK for fear of arrest does not prove your point of raising it – that Israeli government ministers are morally equivalent to an Iranian minister involved in the indiscriminate murder of Jews in Argentina.

The fact that you would try to argue that a an Israeli who was allegedly involved in the indiscriminate killing of Palestinian Arabs is somehow morally superior to an Iranian who was allegedly involved in the indiscriminate killing of Jews in Argentina is troubling, bordering on racist.

I’m making no judgement on moral superiority. If there is a case to answer, whether for war crimes or acts of terrorism, they should be answered. Justice for victims of terrorism and war crimes should not be subject to the whims of self-serving politicians.

The argument I made is proven. The fact that you are trying to change my argument should give a good indicator as to the relative merits of the arguments outlined.

How dare you accuse me of racism! You have twisted my words shamelessly to try to make out that I have said something I have not.

You, dubi, are the one trying to insert a moral equivalence between an act of outright terrorism against an entirely unarguably civilian target in a country thousands of miles away from Iran with the acts of a government trying to defend its country from those who a) threaten its murderous annihilation b) carry out their activities in heavily populated civilian areas.

I regret the death of ANY civilian – Jew, Muslim, atheist, whatever. Israel goes to extraordinary lengths to minimise civilian casualties. This Iranian minister (and others) go out of their way to maximise civilian casualties. THAT is the differnce. And you accuse ME of racism?

“that Israeli government ministers are morally equivalent to an Iranian minister involved in the indiscriminate murder of Jews in Argentina.”

Your argument seems to be that they are not morally equivalent. Moral equivalence isn’t really a useful tool, so I take no position on it. But if you are arguing that they are not morally equivalent, are you not arguing that one (presumably the Israelis) are in a stronger moral position than the other?

The pounding of defenceless civilians during the Gaza massacre doesn’t fit with your defensive analysis of the Israeli regimes aims. I don’t use different rules for different people. Just because someone dons a smart uniform doesn’t mean they are somehow better.

You feel you want to defend Israeli leaders against charges of war crimes. That’s fine, nationalism induces such urges. But you’re not the judge. There is a case to answer, let it be answered.

I have clearly set out why yes – I believe Israeli government ministers are morally superior to those who participated in the terrorist outrage in Argentina – and it clearly has absolutely zero to do with the race of the actors or the victims in each case.

I have shown you how the unfortunate and collateral deaths of civilians in Gaza came about (and I repeat I regret even one such death). Now you show me ANY possible justification for the bombing in Argentina, and I will admit there is even the POSSIBILITY they are morally equivalent.

Oh for heaven’s sake. I am NOT trying to justify the “indiscriminate killing of civilians”. I am explaining that the unfortunate accidental deaths of those civilians that died in Operation Cast Lead were just that – unfortunate and accidental.

Surely even you acknowledge that there were SOME people in Gaza who could be classed as “combatants” against whom Israel COULD be justified in taking action. Even if it is accepted that the IDF was “negligent” with respect to civilians (which I do not), can you seriously not see the difference between this and the deliberate targetting of civilians (thousands of miles away from any combatants)?

Can you not even admit to the possibility of a smidgeon of a difference?

“I am explaining that the unfortunate accidental deaths of those civilians that died in Operation Cast Lead were just that – unfortunate and accidental.”

The problem is, the only way you can possibly arrive at that conclusion is if you discard the independent and verified documentary record, and accept the official state narrative. And in doing so, you are defending the indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

“Surely even you acknowledge that there were SOME people in Gaza who could be classed as “combatants””

Of course there were.

“against whom Israel COULD be justified in taking action”

Not just justified, obligated.

“Even if it is accepted that the IDF was “negligent” with respect to civilians (which I do not)”

There were instances of negligence, and there were instances of war crimes, and there were accidents. The opinion of pseudonymous forum posters don’t really count.

“can you seriously not see the difference between this and the deliberate targetting of civilians (thousands of miles away from any combatants)?”

Defenders of state terrorism rely on this defence all the time. Even though there were no battles, and no fighting in Gaza. Even though many soldiers are on record as saying that they saw not a solitary combatant.

“Can you not even admit to the possibility of a smidgeon of a difference?”

LIsten, doo-doo, Israel and *any* country will do whatever it takes to defend its citizens. It Hamas POUNDS Israel with rockets launched from the midsts of the civilian population, that population whose interests they claim to represent, and in fact that freely voted for that mafia, then they will face the consequences. That´s the real world. And your ICJ and fake international-lawyerism is just irrelevant. Ask the Darfurians about it. Oh, sorry, Darfur is an “organic” sh*t-hole, not an exported mini-State, so why worrying about such European niceties such as democracy and human rights for them?

Once again, your hypocrisy and intellectual delinquency shines for all to see.

Is there one single person in that racist Guardian who is actually sane or isn’t prejudiced against Israel …You have Bella Mackie writing an article….The same Bella Mackie who deletes pro-Israeli posts.

“My dog will take pride of place at my wedding”………Pulitzer Prize material…………. about bringing her dogs to her wedding (four legged ones I hope)…..There was one post on that thread that summed up this stinking paper.

And it was written by………SweetBirdOfTruth……Sorry too late the bastards deleted it,it received a heap of recommendations though.

That doggy article by Bella Mackie daughter of Rusbridger summed up the Guardian beautifully.Nepotism is alive and well in this racist anti-Semitic rag……

Adam, I suspect there’s something less formal than censorship rules. For example if someone omits to lie about Israel or in some way make Jews look bad. it would be quite easy for a critic to say “This isn’t making Iran look very good. The headscarves, for example.”

Someone could then say, “But they like it in Israel. Let’s concentrate on that. Big it up. Let’s find out if Israelis are surprised”.

“Oh, they’re more than surprised! Let me find that quote in the Washington Post…”

But the Washington Post also found a political science professor with something realistic to say:

Moshe Amirav, a political science professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said he “didn’t stop thinking about the bomb the whole time” he was watching “A Separation.”

“I said, what a contrast that we see this Iranian film with such admiration, and then when we leave we think about how they want to kill us,” Amirav said.

There is no “willing suspension of disbelief”. It’s a small ray of light showing what lots of people know, that it is the Iranian leadership that wants to destroy Israel.

I wonder if Reza Pahlavi has had anything to say about it.

I recommend the Tweets of the Iranian exile Khoshkeledoc to anyone on Twitter.

“Yair Raveh, film critic for Israel’s leading entertainment magazine, Pnai Plus, said, “Ultimately you don’t think about nuclear bombs or dictators threatening world peace. You see them driving cars and going to movies and they look exactly like us.”

Rina Brick, 70, said, “Our image of how Iran works is less democratic than we see here. The judge, the police, everyone behaves as if they are in a Western country.”

Rivka Cohen, 78, who left Iran at age 15, was “surprised by the way people lived in their houses…Everyone had a fridge and a washing machine.”

Meanwhile, some movie-goers weren’t even as enlightened as those above. Moshe Amirav, a political science professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said he “didn’t stop thinking about the bomb the whole time” he was watching A Separation. “I said, what a contrast that we see this Iranian film with such admiration, and then when we leave we think about how they want to kill us,” Amirav said.

And that guy is a professor. Of political science. At a real university.”

“And you insist giving lecturing people on credibility while YOU have absolutely NONE to your credit? Uncontrollable hypocrisy is your second nature, doo-doo.”

If Adam is compelled to pander to the pro-war crowd by writing things which have already been debunked countless times, anyone interested in peace should similarly compelled to point out the lies. Unless you feel lying for Israel is somehow different to other lying.

It’s not this site’s fault that you’re bad at attempting PR on Iran’s behalf, worse at changing the subject away from facts that are not favorable to your anti-Israel pets, and worst of all boring and whiny at every step of the word. No one’s going to stop you from posting your BS, but would it kill you to be intelligent and/or insightful, if only occasionally?

Dubitante, what compulsion would that be? Is it the inherent nature of ‘the Jew’ that motivates his lies and hostility towards peace-loving utopias like Iran – where coincidently, the number of Jews is minimal, and their influence even less – which is why we can trust them right? Or is Adam caught in a powerful zionist web of deceit in which he is no longer the agent of his own destiny?

Tell us, you are the only one here who is liberated from the shackles of ‘zionist power’ and is heroic enough to speak the truth.

Dubitante. If there is so little ground for any kind of debate, except for the facile Punch and Judy type of exchanges like this one, then presumably you are only here for the satisfaction you derive from your daily fix of Jew-baiting.

At a recent event, 25th February 2012, held at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre at the end of his speech discussing the fate of Iranian refugees in Iraq one of the speakers said this;

“The regime that killed so many of them in 1988 is still in place with the exception of, of course, the ayatollah. and I have to say that the greatest objection to Iran the nuclear power is the fact that its already granted itself impunity for mass murder and it may mass murder again.”

The speaker who made that statement was Geoffrey Robertson Q.C. a Judge and, noted, Human Rights Lawyer.

I think this is a case of someone making an effort (conscious or not) to interpret the article in the most negative way possible.

such a dynamic should reasonably been framed as a story about Israeli tolerance

Or how about: a story of Israelis just being curious about an Oscar-winning film depicting an everyday kind of story set in Iran?

We’re to assume, it seems, that the “war, intimidation, and aggression” is of the Israeli variety, in contrast to Iran’s “peaceful” culture.

Why assume that? I read it as Israeli movie buffs if not “recognising his country’s glorious and essentially peaceful culture” then at least being interested in Iran’s “glorious culture, a rich and ancient culture that has been hidden under the heavy dust of politics” (that’s as Farhadi put it, at least).

Yes, those ignorant, bigoted Israelis, believing the worst about [Iran].

Now here you are clearly just making up a suggestion that isn’t there.

You also refer to Iran as “the nation which seeks their annihilation and denies the Holocaust.”
The article is referring to those many Israelis who see Iran as far more than that – if even like that at all.

It’s irrelevant what people FEEL about a piece of art and what the reality is. Iran with a nuclear bomb is a real threat , not only to Israel but to the world. It is skilful at hoodwinking the world into believing that its intentions are entirely peaceful, when it acts in a most aggressive and insidious way. To see flat screen TV or to remark “they are just like us” misses the point entirely.
The Guardian plays its dirty propaganda campaign to connect ordinary daily issues that affect all of us , with the dark objectives of the political game, by anaesthetising them so that we should stop “harassing” poor Iran. Here it does it through the arts pages and is all the more worrying since it is subliminally feeding the readership when they are least aware of the message they are absorbing.

Indeed. That continuous superposition of contradictory statements, theocratic dictatorship pursuing “peaceful” nuclear means, is a standard practice of disinformation propaganda, called overcharge. The point is to induce confusion, scramble the rational thinking process about reality and paralyse decision-making. In this sense, Der Guardian is doing his fifth columnist for ilamism as leftists did for the USSR in the past.

“Scotsman – By Lord Fraser Friday 24 February 2012
THE announcement by the Iranian regime that its nuclear programme is advancing should sound loud alarms as the time for decisions on the Iranian nuclear crisis grows ever closer. Yet, Barack Obama’s US administration continues to lag in responding while seemingly banking on sanctions to bring the ayatollahs around.

But what if sanctions do not succeed? Should the world accept a nuclear armed Iran? Let’s start with basics.

The world community agrees that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapon capabilities. Yet, all indications are that this is Tehran’s ultimate objective.

When Obama became president, a new approach towards Iran was one of the cornerstones of the administration’s foreign policy, and he cannot be faulted for wanting to test engagement once again. But the US gave this policy too much time – time that Iran used to continue to develop its nuclear capability. Thus, Iran today is much closer to obtaining a nuclear bomb than it was when Obama took office.

One clear lesson is that oppressive regimes view diplomacy as a one-way street. They accept concessions and then stall when asked to reciprocate. Meanwhile, they continue their nefarious behaviour.”

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie was, among other public offices, the Lord Advocate of Scotland.

“Rivka Cohen, who left Iran at age 15 and is now 78, said she was surprised to note that “everyone had a fridge and a washing machine”.”

That’s probably because they didn’t when she left. All my Chinese friends are terribly startled when they visit the relatives in China and see how modern everything is, compared to what they remember from childhood.

Extract from a speech by Rudi Giuliani, last month, February 2012 in Washington.

“This is a regime who just a few months ago got indicted by the Obama Administration for trying to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador right here in the nation’s capital. That’s an act of war. And we
call them a rational actor?

This is my great nightmare. It used to be during the cold war nuclear weapons in the hands of insane people. I’m sorry, the Ayatollah, Ahmadinejad has done everything to convince me that these people are not rational actors. I’m sorry, they’re doing a good pretense of being insane. They’re doing a good pretense of being maniacs. Denying the Holocaust, wanting to slaughter the people of Israel, killing American soldiers, and wanting to kill the Saudi Arabian Ambassador here in this city.

Should these people be allowed to have nuclear weapons? No way, no how, never, ever.

Instead of begging with them and pleading with them, instead of America being a supplicant, American should reinvent Ronald Reagan. It’s time for Ronald Reagan, not Neville Chamberlain.

It’s time for President Obama to become Ronald Reagan, and to look him straight in the eye and call them what they are, an evil empire. To do what Ronald Reagan did and point missiles at their city and to get the people of the Soviet leadership to believe that he wasn’t reluctant to attack them, he’s waiting for an opportunity to do it because that’s how you change, that’s how you change the calculus here. That’s how you change the leverage.

Instead of looking at a president who looks so reluctant, he will never act; they should be looking at a president that they afraid of, that they are frightened of, that they are worried will use the greatest military in the history of the world to stop them from becoming a nuclear power. And believe me, if we do that, the chance of having to use that military power goes down dramatically because bullies can be frightened if you stand up to them and if you don’t let them take advantage of you.”